Her candidacy comes as good news for Senate Democrats, who were hunting for a top candidate to run for the competitive seat.

West Virginia Democratic Party Chairman Larry Puccio declined to confirm any impending announcement to CQ Roll Call but said Tennant had been widely recruited from within the state to run. A spokesperson for Tennant could not be reached for comment.

But the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fueled speculation about Tennant’s announcement when aides circulated a positive local news story about her performance as secretary of state. The committee declined to confirm the report.

Hrm.. Look at the candidates that they endorse. Not exactly the “blue dog” democrats are they…

EdKulzer

I see. So, the entire Democratic Party besides the ConservaDems (who were voted out in 2010 and replaced with Republicans) are “radical left wing”. Got it.

YoungConservative

Just saying. West Virginian dems are “ConservaDems” as you put it. That’s why Manchin is so well liked yet Obama lost by a 2-1 margin.

EdKulzer

And grass is green and the birds fly south for the winter. ? The Republican Party is the most ideologically extreme it’s been in over 100 years, a polarity unseen & unmirrored on “the left”— while, as you stipulate, the destruction of Democrats’ rightward flank, with the replacement of the Blue Dogs with Republicans in 2010, did cause the party to “leften”— not by overall policy shifts, but by Republicans winning those seats.

Government handouts are slave

No, the left isn’t extreme at all. They want to restrict the 2nd amendment because that’s the popular position (sarcasm). I’m sure those in Colorado viewed their senators as “extreme” if middle class registered democrats voted them out of office.

EdKulzer

Aaaaaah. Do you have the slightest clue what the actual legislation in CO was? No, I’m sorry, “derrrppp” didn’t make the final print of the law.

In which precise way did that legislation breach the 2nd Amendment? Hmmm?

Government handouts are slave

How about requiring background checks for all private transfers (it’s not possible for private citizens to obtain these checks), or placing arbitrary restrictions on standard capacity magazines (what’s considered dangerous, 8? 11? 16? 31? and how do you make that decision with no evidence?).

EdKulzer

With no evidence? In Colorado: Aurora. Arizona. Columbine. Newtown. Frickin EVIDENCE. Restricting mag size is NOT anti-2nd Amendment. It is anti-mass-casualty human slaughter.

Theory and implementation are 2 different things. Yes, background checks are good, but not when you don’t put in a process for people to get them. That just restricts legal transfers. Criminals are still going to get guns, that’s why they are criminals, they don’t follow legal channels.

And I can tell you are not a gun owner, so let me enlighten you. It literally takes 2 seconds to change magazines. In Newtown and those other shootings those mentally ill individuals were already carrying multiple magazines with the intent to swap them out once emptied. If someone wants to commit a mass shooting, all they need to do is carry slightly more smaller magazines and there will be no difference.

Your argument is like saying sports cars should be banned because they go faster and are therefore more dangerous. It’s not the inanimate object that presents the danger, it’s the operator and gun restrictions don’t stop them obtaining firearms and carrying out their depraved acts. It’s not like calling a school a “gun free zone” stops criminals from carrying guns into them.

EdKulzer

And there you’re left with the “Derrrrp! It’s human nature; ain’t nuffin’ we can do about it.” approach to curbing gun violence.

Oh. That’s right. The only way to stop gun violence is with more guns. Forgot about that.

“Feel” mighty “good” about that, “Slave”.

signspeaker

There is no balance. What are the political elites who are building have built a standing army and a surveillance state going to give us in return for taking away more of our ability to curb a tyrannical government?

Vanbren5

Look at the Dow’s performance today. “Tyrannical government” appears to work better than GWB’s inept and incompetent. Your party is dying very slowly and there’s nothing you can do to save it.

Government handouts are slave

Really? Colorado seems to be swinging Republican nowadays. Two senators recalled, Hickenlooper’s popularity spiraling down and now polling even with Tancredo. Look at his popularity before and after gun control, it’s really quite astounding. Liberal Connecticut has a 50/50 shot at electing a Republican gov because of their current governor’s ineptitude. Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia senate seats projected by all experts to flip in 2014. The GOP expected to hold on to the House. I think the GOP is doing alright.

signspeaker

a liberal loves the market this week. until you don’t.

EdKulzer

Depends on what’s buttressing it. If it’s “risks on risks on bubbled risks on hedged bets borne of overleveraged capital”, then the market’s as unsafe and as terrible as ever. If there’s meat behind the numbers, we all have cause to be emboldened.

EdKulzer

” in return for taking away more of our ability to curb a tyrannical government?”

That was never— and IS NOT the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

That, itself, is insurrection. Is sedition. That is NOT Constitutionally protected.

“If … the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia [and] the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee – it does not assure the existence of a ‘citizens’ militia’ as a safeguard against tyranny,” Justice Scalia wrote. Scalia drew a distinction between government-sanctioned militiamen and a broader “people’s militia,” which he said was the concern of the founding generation.

Absolutely I disagree with his opinion, because he lazily lofted baldly asserted chest-thumpiansm without bothering to cite a damned thing.

Which is a waste of time. Which is what MOST conservatives do when flailingly failing at attempting to debate.

EdKulzer

Most—- but not all.

signspeaker

That Living Document fallacy, as it related to ‘principles’, which yall call guidelines instead.

EdKulzer

Hardly. The Living Document of the Constitution is by no means a “fallacy”, any more than Originalism is. Suggestion of the sort is coarse arrogance.

“Guidelines”? I’m sorry— are you going to look me in the face and say that “Conservatives” have sole province and possession of “principles”?

EdKulzer

Do you disagree with Scalia’s Opinion?

signspeaker

Certainly, if it means that any decision you don’t like means rehearing until you get the desired result.

You Libs are too smart to see that human nature never changes, even amongst yourselves.

EdKulzer

Aaaah— but it does, even if glacially. The charge to ever “better perfect our Union” isn’t Sysiphian— isn’t mindlessly “Utopian”.

It is Puritanical. There is the possibility of change and development through hard work. There is even the possibility of redemption and forgiveness.

These are not solely Liberal virtues.

I can’t imagine why they’d need to be anything but universal.

EdKulzer

And then YET AGAIN you go the idiotic step of slippery slopism. “From the Liberal position, BG checks are only a gateway to registration and more. ” 1: that’s YOU, stipulating from the Right what “the Liberal position is, and its motives”— excuse me, but your motives, your discernment, and your reason are suspect.

signspeaker

You still didn’t answer my question. I’m trying to look past slippery wording here, and get to were we might find agreement. So far, we are at the extremes on the issues. As I understand it:

You: no semi’s, no right to carry, except for limited hunting arms with strong government regulation.

Me: No Manpads, grenades, mortars.

Where are you willing to negotiate??

EdKulzer

You still are mis-representing my position— is it on purpose?

“No right to carry”— that is utter and complete garbage. Where have I ever— EVER— stipulated anything of the sort?

Do not bring YOUR pre-conceptions, YOUR biases, into what you need my position to be— into this discussion.

THAT is what forestalls any development.

“No Manpads, grenades, mortars”? THOSE ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL. THAT is no “negotiation” at all. “I won’t allow what is already against the law for you to have”. Wow. Mighty mighty concession there, Phil.

EdKulzer

MY position— IF we’re talking about “3000% of what we want and more, basically posturing, to have a “stronger than what we want” position from which to concede away in negotiation”—

Back atcha, man. You’re insisting I believe crap that I don’t, in order for your pre-conceived notion of “what liberals think or want” to be true.

Great conversation.

signspeaker

I exemplified the extreme for you huh? That was my point. I have no trust for anyone on the Left side of the argument. Canada and Australia are not America……but they had this exact same discussion. I wouldn’t expect the results to be any different.

I’m still confused by your stand on this, saying that you don’t want to remove gun rights in their entirety, saying that we agree that the Federal Government is overstepping bounds in many ways…..but totally denying that these things will be connected by their proponents ASAP.

EdKulzer

“I exemplified the extreme for you huh”? No— “the extreme” would be “rescinding all gun laws”, mandating that every man woman and child need to carry guns.

I have no trust for anyone on the RIGHT side of the argument.

OF COURSE you’re still confused about my stand on this: by your own hand, you ASSUMED what “my stance” was.

If you would step away from slippery slope, this conversation would actually be a conversation.

Til you do, you are mired in fallacy, and nothing will ever go anywhere.

signspeaker

It’s not a fallacy to say that the folks in positions of power want to rescind the 2nd amendment, whatever one’s interpretation of it may be. Maybe that’s where our real argument lies.

THe nature of where our real argument lies— in where the argument over the right to commit mass murder vs the right to bear arms has ALWAYS lay, is in the interpretation of the “lost amendment”, the purposefully vague 2nd Amendment.

And FURTHER shows how this conversation is doomed from the start. You are existing in implausible fallacy, incapable or unwilling to set aside your bluster in order to actually converse.

signspeaker

So, mean something different than you continually imply? Maybe I’m just sensitive.

“in where the argument over the right to commit mass murder vs the right to bear arms has ALWAYS lay,”

EdKulzer

“to imply”— is “your read”, not “my statement”.

What did I show there? But the 2 extremes of the generational argument, the overarching theme of what has kept anything from solidifying since Republicans were FOR gun control in the wake of the other three Ks in the ’60s. JFK, RFK, MLK.

The way this conversation ALWAYS goes: “the Left” arguing for modest gun safety measures to try to ensure that they who buy, own and use firearms are legal and of sane mind– NOT for seizure, NOT for “let the gubmint know who owns which/all guns”, NOT for “let no one ever own any guns but police”…

And the Right arguing that there is no way, whatsoever, ever ever ever ever that “all violence” could ever be stopped, so nothing can ever and should ever be done to pre-ascertain they who’ve a higher likelihood for gun violence, nothing can be done. Nothing. Except investing in body bags. Nothing will ever work, so stop wasting anyone’s effort bothering to try. End of converstaion, that’s it, it’s done, shut up and buy a gun to protect yourselves you pansy.

That has been the nature of the argument for the past 20 – 30 years.

signspeaker

You cannot divorce the ban and confiscation fear from the realities on this. Too many Liberal demigods are on record, but hey, hypocrisy doesn’t bother Liberals. Many they don’t really mean what they say.

Do you need me to post the quotes?

This is where we end up every time because this is where the people on either side actually are in their political views.

EdKulzer

No, what YOU “cannot divorce” is your need for conspiratorial fallacies from any legitimate attempt to argue on the issue.

Know what the “lead bullets” legislation was about? Pollution. Not that the fringe Rightwing idiot-rag you linked to would bother to tell you that— THEY”RE saying that ALL bullets are lead bullets, so it’s a de facto assault on hunters.

You’ve exploded in a hissy fit over one part. I like copper bullets, BTW.

EdKulzer

Dude, seriously. If y’can’t rise above, c’mon. If you like copper rounds, then in that, you recognize that the idiotic source you provided was using pathetically desperate spin, saying that Dems were looking to outlaw ALL rounds in the lead ban.

C’mon.

Government handouts are slave

I just realized that if Capito can tie Tennant to the national democrat effort to restrict gun rights, then this won’t even be a race. That is a slam dunk strategy right there.

EdKulzer

Again. What part of “background checks” is it that you fringe right wing nutjobs have gone so far out on a limb as to demand is “restricting gun rights”?

Slam dunk? No, man. It’s just the further debasement of Conservative integrity.

Government handouts are slave

It’s not just background checks and you are blind to think so. That is a stepping stone to more restrictive measures. How are people supposed to sell or transfer a firearm to a friend/family member/law-abiding citizen without any way to conduct these checks? That right there infringes on the rights of the person buying the firearm. Again, theory and implementation are 2 vastly different things. Ask the people of Colorado who just fired their senators.

EdKulzer

And there is the lunatic fallacy of the slippery slope.

“Youre blind to think so”? You’re a STOOGE to buy that fallacious crap.

Are you seriously going to bring the “Derrrp! What about der private gun sales background checks”?

What non-Progressive concept would a Liberal not want to restrict? Name one.

EdKulzer

WATERBOARDING.

signspeaker

From the extreme perspectives, either way, it doesn’t matter.

What options is the “government” offering for negotiation? What happens tommorrow if you negotiate away the founding principle today?

EdKulzer

For negotiation on what? There is no right to murder. There is no right to slaughter en masse.

If we want to go back and look at the– what was it— 26 EOs after Newtown, ALL of which the spokesman for the NRA said he said he was optimistic on— (until the NRA decided to go full DERPP!)— what exactly, what precisely, has been unconscionably overreach?

Background checks? C’mon. That’s the “if there’s absolutely NOTHING that can be done, at the absolute bare minimum, we all can agree to agree on this” bargain basement “do-nothing-ism”.

And if even THAT is what the Right says is too far?

Then that’s a duplicitious god damned mockery.

signspeaker

Your agenda is mockery, and stupidity. You willingly accept that gubment is exceeding its mandates in ways that defy limitation, yet seek every device to assure no checks in the advance of an authoritarian state.

It’s not about the guns at this point. You may be that naive, however.

EdKulzer

No, my METHOD is mockery– OF stupidity.

“exceeding its mandates”— I don’t accept that line of presemption whatsoever. ESPECIALLY when it comes to civil liberties and the erosion/assault that began under the pretenses of the blowback after 9/11.

“Authoritarian state”? Please don’t tell me you’re buying into the “theyz comin’ to get our guns so they can… so they can… so they can force us all into fat camps to eat broccoli and not smoke and be healthy and… ”

What, praytell IS the telltale end of that mythology? Soylent Green?

signspeaker

Utopia is the end. Whose then?

Do we have the mentality on either extreme to be like the Swiss, or Norwegians?

EdKulzer

Utopia is the end? “Utopia” is the unreachable end goal of “perfect system”. As conversed with “dystopia”, which is pretty much “Blade Runner” married to “Naked Lunch”.

What, in what you just wrote there, even APPROACHES a sane, conscionable, and reasoned discussion about the merits of gun safety in a nation mired with mass murder?

signspeaker

We are mired with Leftist talking points, here, not gun “safety”.

EdKulzer

And all prospects for conversation have drowned in Rightist fallacies polluting the conversation space— the biggest of which being “Democrats wanna come getcher guns! Hate the 2nd Amendment!”

signspeaker

Your argument was stronger 3 years ago. Now, its just a diversion for the weakminded on both sides. If you don’t believe the elites won’t push for maximum control you’re deluded, if I don’t believe that your kind wouldn’t, I’m soon compelled forcibly to register and/or turn in weapons.

For the children either way, right? The standing army is going to protect….

“The elites will…” that is arguing that a weak seemingly innocuous expansion of gun control measures is the crack in the dam that will lead inexhorably to a flood, no? “Maximum control”?

signspeaker

You didn’t expand on your comments, or answer my question.

EdKulzer

? It explained that you’d utilized slippery slope, which isn’t actually argument. 5 shot mags? Sure. I could meet you there. Heck, we could go back to 12, which is what the law WAS before the last Congress allowed it to lapse.

signspeaker

I’m asking hard questions and all you give in return is demagoguery. Of course nanny statists want this, I’m trying to ask where the line gets drawn for folks concerned with the other side of the issue.

You realize the government power grabs, but think someone noble and wise can control it?

Slippery slope is NOT “hard questions”. It’s a side step from actual discussion and a bunkering down into fallacy.

The government power grabs. And killers take semi automatic weapons into pre-schools.

There is a middle ground that SURE AS HELL doesn’t END at “background checks”.

signspeaker

And so we are where we started.

EdKulzer

When did we ever leave?

If the Right’s response to the plethora of mass murders lately is dually: 1) can’t do nuffin'; 2) blame the inner city blacks for all their black on black violence,

Then that is their way of elocuting to the room that they’ve no interest in any conversation whatsoever and— once again, no interest in standing a shadow’s breadth from their ideological dogma.

Vanbren5

“Statist?” Mark Levin cultists….When Levin starts passing out the kool-aid, be sure you step to the front of the line. Levin will live out his fifteen minutes like Glenn Beck. At what point does their snake oil wear off? Sooner or later we have to run a nation and start paying the bills.

signspeaker

Statist is a definition that neatly fits today’s government first crowd. Do you disagree with the definition?

Vanbren5

Nonsense. Your fear driven cult with its trendy rituals, doomday prophets and disciples and goofy verbage is no different from all of the others. The Levin cult will run its course like all of the others. A strong Federal Government is necessary to compete in an increasingly sophisticated international marketplace and maintain our place as the leader of the free world. Keep your fear driven cult in the privacy of your own home. Somebody has to stay rational, run the nation and pay its bills. The Blue states are already paying your bills. You should be ashamed of that reality but those with a penchant for cults, superstition, snake oil quick fixes and hocus pocus have little capacity for shame.

signspeaker

elitism never changes, evidently.

Vanbren5

So that’s all you’ve got? Just more of your cult language and sophmoric name calling?. Try breaking free of the cult-with all of its demogogues and violent imagery- and use critical thinking for a change. You’ve got Google at your disposal.

signspeaker

Critical thinking. How about you start by answering my question. We should agree on a few terms so that the “debate” actually means something. Choose a definition of statist you like.

What violet imagery are you talking about? I’m sure you don’t mind the police/DHS enforcing laws, with violent means…do you?

Seemingly, the only critical thinking you accept is only that which reinforces your view. Which was my original point, assho1e.

Vanbren5

Mark Levin is a televangelist no different than Elmer Gantry, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert, et al. His only concern is to sell books and materials that support his cult and belief systems to his gullible, wide eyed followers. You’re being hoodwinked and don’t even know it.

signspeaker

I never mentioned Levin, he’s living in your head for free.

You can’t even defend one of several Webster’s definitions of a word, much less convince anyone you guys aren’t Leftist radicals.

YoungConservative

Capito has this race all wrapped up. Hey GOP office seekers: Secretary of State just opened up.

CVBeethoven

Tenant has already won statewide… Not true for Capito. FYI: US Senate is a statewide contest.

YoungConservative

Really? I didn’t realize Senator was statewide. Duh. Look at the polls, Capito was ahead of Rockefeller as soon as she jumped in the race. I’m willing to bet that was a major reason he decided to retire. When a state only has 3 representatives, those people are very well known. I would argue even more well known than a Secretary of State. How often do you see a Secretary of State campaign advertisement or hear about them in the news? Not very often.

Vanbren5

She hasn’t scored over 45% in any poll. Obama may be unpopular there but Bill Clinton isn’t and he’ll be there working for Tennant. ALL sections of the ACA ARE popular such as allowing kids to stay of their parents Health Insurance, allowing more people to get on Medicaid, etc. Its her record that will be her undoing. Furthermore, her roll in the upcoming gov’t shutdown will work against her.

Government handouts are slave

The West Virginia Poll that shows Capito with 45% of the vote is from the same pollster that brought you such biased inaccuracies as Obama losing by 14% (lost by 26%) and Morrisey losing to McGraw (Morrisey won).

Wow, you are really living under a rock. Even in the national polls show more opposition than support of Obamacare. Republicans had a wave year in 2010 solely because of Obamacare. To claim that ALL sections are popular is nothing more than crazy talk. SOME parts are popular: extended coverage for children, not excluding those with pre-existing conditions, etc. But the overall law is unpopular. Are the spikes in insurance premiums popular? They are driving employers to drop employees to part time status to avoid the massive spike that is approaching. In my state, for someone my age with no pre-existing conditions to get private health insurance would cost $75 per month. Do you want to know what the average price under the new exchanges will be? $270 per month.

Vanbren5

All points youve listed are blarney. You’re a cultist and encapable of reason. You don’t understand how economics works. More people paying into the Health Insurance markets means lower premiums for everyone. Any polls showing higher negatves for ACA don’t include those of us who preferred single payer. Why should private insurance get involved in people health care choices and pay exorbitant salaries to their CEO’s and paper pushers?. But ACA is what we have and it is the law of the land. I’ll accept that.

So the cultist that believes everything that comes out of Obummer’s mouth is calling me a cultist. Funny.

Sure premiums are going down… for people with pre-existing conditions and those in liberal states where insurance premiums were already insane. In other states like Pennsylvania and Ohio for example, premiums are going up by crazy amounts. These insurance companies have to pay for all these people with pre-existing conditions to enter the pool, so that money has to come from someone. And that someone is younger, healthier people.

Vanbren5

Either way everyone pays for those with pre-existing conditions. Apparently, you would prefer that they simply die, but that not how a sophiscated Industrialized Nation deals with its people. With ACA at least they get immediate help and they have to contribute and participate with premiums before they’re too sick to get help.
Obama is the only one behaving like an adult. Your trendy cult is really no different that all of the others. All of your goofy doomsday prophets and disciples-Levin, Ayn Rand, Reagan, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Sarah Palin, etc- all sell the same snake oil until they are marginalized into silliness and wierdness. Your cults are all fine and dandy as long as you keep it in your home. But when first graders and innocent people are being slaughtered and the bills don’t get paid on time you become a public nuisance. We have to compete in an international market place and our competitors have little patience for cults that disrupt Democracy and Freedom. But go ahead, you can have your cults, guns, alcohol, tobacco, racism, and all of other unhealthy risky habits. It is a free country. Every day, you are proving yourself incapable of behaving as a responsible citizen and we’ll use it against you to gain healthy majorities.

Government handouts = slavery

Only socialist societies pass laws like this. How about instead of punishing those who live healthier lifestyles, those with pre-existing conditions pay an increased share? But that is a logical solution so I guess nobody thought of that. People can continue to overeat and give themselves diabetes or drink until their livers fail and the people who live healthy lifestyles will just have to pay for their medical expenses. Don’t worry people who make poor choices, someone else has you covered.

Vanbren5

Only a sociopath or a fascist would deny healthcare to someone who needs it. If you really believe that those with risky unhealthy lifestyles should pay a penalty for their behavior then you should love ACA. The private Health Insurance corporations are already onto this notion and they are going to run the entire thing. It will be in their best interest to encourage healthy lifestyles because they’ll be competing with other private health insurance companies for their premiums. Those with unhealthy lifestyles will see the difference in premiums and how much their risky lifestyle will cost them. Healthy people will pay lower premiums and smokers, drinkers, drug users, et al will pay higher premiums. Similarly good drivers pay lower premiums than bad drivers. Thats how the private insurance markets work..

Government handouts = slavery

I wasn’t saying turn them away, just make them pay a crap ton more so that the burden isn’t placed on young healthy people like it is now with increasing premiums. That’s the whole reason for the mandate, to force younger people who sometimes decide not to get insurance into the pool because they can rake in premiums from them without having to pay out. But those with pre-existing conditions need to pay a lot more. If you have a car accident without insurance, it’s not like you can go to an insurance agent and say I want a policy now pay for my accident. Why should health insurance work like that?

Government handouts are slave

No one pays attention to secretary races, or most down ballot races for that matter. Most people just vote for their party’s candidate. We’ll see how she does once she has to actually debate and give her stance on issues. Capito has served 12+ years in the house and is actually quite popular.

Vanbren5

She may be popular in HER district. Statewide many won’t know her. Her votes against popular sections of the ACA will damage her statewide. Dems will portray her as an elitist.

Government handouts are slave

The polls that were testing her vs Rockefeller before he bowed out WERE statewide and had her leading. All of the polls testing her against potential match-ups ARE statewide and her approval numbers are very good and indicate that she has high name recognition. Obamacare is not very popular there overall and is one of the major campaign issues that Morrisey (republican) used to oust McGraw in the attorney general race.

CVBeethoven

Why do you suppose Capito would outduel her in a debate? The needle moved leftward immediately when Tenant got in the race. They must think she’s got a head on her shoulders.

Government handouts = slavery

Why? Because Sabato moved it from Likely Republican to Lean Republican just because the race went from Capito vs nobodies to Capito vs somebody with slight name recognition? No other analysis has moved following her entering and if you read Sabato’s write-up he says Republicans would really have to try to lose this race. The only poll that tested this match-up so far is one with a known, very biased democratic lean, and it even shows Capito up 5%.

GuardianAngle

It won’t open up. Sec. of State is not up until 2016.

CVBeethoven

It will open up. Constitutionally, she can’t serve both as Senator AND Secretary of State.

Vanbren5

She’s got creds, name recognition and she’s got Manchin and Rockefeller ready to see her through till through till swearing in. Its going to be fun watching the repugs lose this one.

YoungConservative

Umm, Capito was polling ahead of Rockefeller. Probably why he decided to retire. Liberal Tennant does not fit the mold of a moderate democrat like Manchin that West Virginians approve of. Obama did real well there…